The story so far: The Global Hunger Index for 2024 states that a ‘serious’ level of hunger is prevalent in India. It ranks India 105th among 127 countries, giving it a score of 27.3. A score below 9.9 indicates low levels of hunger, 10-19.9 moderate, 35-49.9 alarming and above 50 extremely alarming.
What does it state about India?
The score is based on four broad parameters, that is, child stunting (share of children under five with lower height proportional to their age, reflecting chronic undernutrition), undernourishment (share of population with insufficient caloric intake), child wasting (share of children under five with lower weight proportional to their height) and child mortality (share of children who die before their fifth birthday). The report traced 13.7% of the population to be undernourished, 35.5% of children as stunted, 18.7% of children wasted and 2.9% of children dying before their fifth birthday. As per the survey, India has the highest child wasting rate globally.
However, the analysis states that India has demonstrated “significant political will” to transform the food and nutrition landscape — pointing to the National Food Security Act, Poshan Abhiyan (National Nutrition Mission), PM Garib Kalyan Yojna (PMGKAY) and National Mission for Natural Farming. But the report argues there exists room for improvement. To illustrate a solution, the report points to the co-relation between the poor nutritional status of mothers being transferred onto their children. There exists an ‘intergenerational pattern of undernutrition’ where the factors driving India’s high child wasting rate entail mothers inflicted with insufficient weight gain during pregnancy and low birth weight among infants.
What about India’s GDP growth?
The report states that the relationship between per capita GDP growth and low levels of hunger is “not always direct or guaranteed”. In other words, GDP growth alone does not result in improved food and nutritional security for the entire populace. Thus, the report puts forth the imperative for policies to emphasise pro-poor development alongside addressing social/economic inequalities.
What solutions does it propose?
Broadly, the report proposes a multifaceted approach such as improved access to social safety nets, addressing complementary factors relating to well-being and nutrition, alongside dedicated approaches to assessing and provisioning nutritional needs. The first of the proposed measures entail improved access to safety nets and cash transfers. These, the report states, involve improving access to programs such as the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS), PMGKAY and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). Other than this, it proposes investments in agriculture and a holistic food systems approach which promotes diversified, nutritious and ecological food production including nutri-cereals such as millets.
Other dedicated approaches include making effective investments in mother and child health. It recommends a set of factors such as improved water, sanitation and hygiene, among other things. Finally, the report also seeks interventions to consider links between food and nutrition, gender and climate change.
In a separate context, Dipa Sinha, Development Economist associated with the Right to Food Campaign told The Hindu that while there exists a worthy system of entitlements addressing all age groups, they require much more strengthening and resources. “For example, PDS only provides cereals and there are exclusions. In schools and Anganwadi, allocations are low and not inflation indexed, thus, there is not much diversity in what is given,” she stated. Ms. Sinha further suggests that the endeavour should be towards making healthy foods more affordable and accessible. “Many cannot afford a healthy diet at current income levels and prices,” she observed.
What is the debate about data collection methodology?
The previous year, the Ministry of Women and Child Development had expressed concerns about the data not being accessed from their ICT application ‘Poshan Tracker’. The Ministry pointed out that UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank have acknowledged the tracker as a “game-changer”. It observed child wasting being consistently below 7.2% on a month-on-month basis as compared to the 18.7% stated in the 2023 index. However, researchers have maintained that they use survey estimates that have been vetted for inclusion in the Joint Malnutrition Estimates and/or the WHO Global Database on Child Growth and Malnutrition. It argues that using the same data source ensures that the numbers are produced using comparable methodologies. “Introducing exceptions to this process for any country would compromise the comparability of the results and the ranking,” it states.
Furthermore, Ms. Sinha contends that the ICT application is monitoring data of the Anganwadi programme and cannot be used for computing prevalence rates (that is, how prevalent something is in an existing population). She adds that it is not representative of the entire population but only those enrolled in the Integrated Child Development Schemes (ICDS). “Such data is useful for immediate monitoring of programme outcomes and design but prevalence rates across the world come from independent surveys,” she states. Ms Sinha suggests that NFHS should be conducted regularly – observing how GHI is released annually but the data from NFHS is not.
Published - October 17, 2024 08:30 am IST
